Several commenters here have suggested that building an alternative to Google, based on values like Wikimedia's, may be a good thing. This is a worthwhile point, and a worthwhile discussion; but it misses the point of what's problematic here.
The problem here, the thing that has many Wikimedians worried, is that Wikimedia trustee Jimmy Wales has apparently been telling outright lies about whether the organization has considered pursuing a search engine to rival Google et al. He has made a number of unequivocal statements in recent weeks -- he himself has accused ousted trustee James Heilman of lying on the subject (but Heilman's narrative is now verified by the published grant application). https://wikimediafoundation.or...
The thing that has shaken Wikimedia up is not the idea of search, but the question of whether we can expect honest communication from those entrusted with the Wikimedia brand and organization. Beyond that, it's whether that organization in fact wishes for the input of Wikimedia's stakeholders in determining its strategic direction -- something it actively pursued five years ago, but is pursuing only minimally and reluctantly now, with the Knowledge Engine grant as merely the strongest indicator of how its activities fail to align with any strategic document with strong buy-in.
Actually, forget the citation -- this is simply untrue. GLAM outreach was envisioned by a longtime Wikipedian, implemented by another longtime Wikipedian, and supported by a number of longtime Wikipedians (among others). The Wikimedia Foundation has supported the work of the GLAM outreach community, but never driven it.
How is this "bending the truth?" Latching onto a product or idea that is "hot" in public discourse is a natural thing to do. It sounds to me like everything they said about the iPhone is true -- I don't think anybody is contesting that -- but that other products have the same problem.
Latching onto a popular product is effective media relations. There's no deception involved in that.
Furthermore, if the iPhone is the leader in driving product innovation, it should most definitely be the subject of scrutiny. If everybody else is trying to catch up with the iPhone, they will likely have to cut the same environmental corners Apple did, if they hope to be successful.
Being a leader comes with responsibility. No less true in consumer electronics than anywhere else.
The Dapper Drake was always intended to be an enterprise-grade release, but several months ago, they decided to give themselves six extra weeks to meet that goal more effectively. They've been working on it much longer than 6 weeks.
Here is an article describing the decision. It links to a log of the actual IRC discussion in which the decision to delay the release was made.
In my view, it's important for the government to regulate corporations, when corporations take a prominent role in determining how basic services will be provided to citizens.
Individual citizens do not have much of a voice in determining what the options are...unless our government is that voice.
I find it baffling why you would value a corporation's "freedom" over that of the masses. But that's just a difference of opinion. Neither side in this argument can legitimately claim to represent "freedom for all."
But there are lots of Free Geeks! Portland is merely the first and biggest.
Though London doesn't have one yet, many other places do: check out this page for links to many recycling orgs around the world, including several that use the Free Geek trademark: http://freegeek.org/recyclelink.php
And if you want to start up one in your own area, be it in Florida, London, or Uzbekistan, Free Geek Portland maintains both documentation on how to start one up, and an email list for motivated folks to stay in touch with one another, and pick the brains of established Free Geeks. The list is at lists.freegeek.org/listinfo and the documentation at wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/Free_Geek_Startups
My last comment got modded down, but I think it's an important one...I'll try to say it clearer and nicer:
This IT Director's comment is interesting, but his/her assertion that the original poster's points are just like comments he/she's heard from 100 users at different organizations is childish and unhelpful rhetoric. The original poster could just as easily say that 100 IT Directors have exhibited the problems he/she is presenting. But the original poster apparently chose not to sink to that rhetorical level.
End users and IT departments strugle with one another; we've all seen it. There is no blanket solution; both sides make stupid assumptions (sometimes) and good decisions (other times.) It may well be that this IT director is "right" at his/her company, and that the original poster is also "right" at his/her company; assuming that one company's culture is like the other is simply naive.
Pointing the finger at one another is unlikely to lead to any real solutions. Demanding meaningful intervention and mediation from upper management makes more sense; higher-level managers who resist the temptation to boot all technical decisions to the IT department, and make the effort to learn enough to make decisions that serve the company as a whole, will reap the benefits of a healthier organization.
At all three companies where I've been an IT worker, there has been a common problem: managers who are generally good managers - good people skills, organizational skills, ability to look at the big picture - but who advertise their "technical ignorance" to anyone who will listen. They let the IT department and all other departments know that they will defer to the IT department on technical matters.
So, you end up with technical decisions that serve the people who deal with technology, as opposed to serving the users who are doing the main work of the company, or serving the company's goals as a whole.
I'm not sure what causes effective managers to decide to take a different approach to technical issues than they do with others, but I'm convinced that's the root cause of the sort of problem described by the poster.
I believe top management - and department managers, following their lead - should be pressing IT managers to break down technical issues to the point where they can make effective decisions. When the IT manager says "it will take 3 months to set up a new mail server" and the sales manager throws her hands in the air, their boss should sit down with the IT manager and make them explain what the factors are that will make it take that long. And if it's too technical and they don't understand, they should SAY so, and make the IT manager explain it again. Until they understand. Then, they should say things like "what would it take to do it in 1 month?" and by that time, they should be informed enough to reject bullshit answers like "we need another $75k employee."
"technical ignorance" is not an excuse, when you have people on staff who are capable of educating you. And IT workers who perpetuate the myth that it's "beyond a non-technical user's understanding" merely for their own convenience should be...fired.
If your management doesn't see things this way, there's probably not much you can do about the problem.
Wow...somebody's got some unprocessed emotion about their job. Did it occur to you that the poster might not work for a carbon-copy of your own company? Everything you say is *possible* - but why on earth would you assume that the IT department is perfect and the poster is the one living in fantasy land? There's just no basis for that.
At all three companies where I've been an IT worker, there has been a common problem: managers who are generally good managers - good people skills, organizational skills, ability to look at the big picture - but who advertise their "technical ignorance" to anyone who will listen. They let the IT department and all other departments know that they will defer to the IT department on technical matters.
So, you end up with technical decisions that serve the people who deal with technology, as opposed to serving the users who are doing the main work of the company, or serving the company's goals as a whole.
I'm not sure what causes effective managers to decide to take a different approach to technical issues than they do with others, but I'm convinced that's the root cause of the sort of problem described by the poster.
I believe top management - and department managers, following their lead - should be pressing IT managers to break down technical issues to the point where they can make effective decisions. When the IT manager says "it will take 3 months to set up a new mail server" and the sales manager throws her hands in the air, their boss should sit down with the IT manager and make them explain what the factors are that will make it take that long. And if it's too technical and they don't understand, they should SAY so, and make the IT manager explain it again. Until they understand. Then, they should say things like "what would it take to do it in 1 month?" and by that time, they should be informed enough to reject bullshit answers like "we need another $75k employee."
"technical ignorance" is not an excuse, when you have people on staff who are capable of educating you. And IT workers who perpetuate the myth that it's "beyond a non-technical user's understanding" merely for their own convenience should be...fired.
If your management doesn't see things this way, there's probably not much you can do about the problem.
I have long believed that Linux on the desktop is less a matter of feature parity than of education and technical support.
Here in Portland, we have a non-profit organization called Free Geek which provides both. They deploy refurbished computer systems with Debian and KDE. A huge number of them go to total computer newbies. Most of them love Linux.
Check it out...more organizations should be doing this stuff. And those who don't should take a look at how good education and tech support can impact usability.
HIPAA does not regulate the specifics of what policies you have to follow to be in (privacy) compliance, but it does require that you follow "due diligence."
Since HIPAA has yet to be litigated, nobody truly knows how the courts will interpret these requirements.
But most likely, the opinions of "privacy experts" respected in their field will be of critical importance.
To me, at least, it seems highly doubtful that merely keeping monitors faced away from walkways will be deemed sufficient to protect information privacy. There are many ways in which privacy could be compromised, and as many measures that can be taken to prevent leaks.
I was setting up a network for a client the other day, and I realized why I hate Windows so much.
At every step, it assumes it's smarter than you. It's the wizard-and-paperclip stuff, but it's in more than just user-oriented stuff.
I was setting up a printer, with a separate network print server, in a DMZ, so that it's accessible from both a publically-accessible wireless network, and from a private office network.
In order to set it up, I wound up having to physically haul the printer to each of the workstations, set it up via USB, temporarily reconfigure the network and plug the ethernet into a different router, and then finally put everything back how it was supposed to be.
All this because Windows doesn't appear to have any way for me to simply set up the printer, specify the file I want to use for the driver, specify the network address I want to use (even if it's not accessible at the time of setup), and move on.
somewhat off-topic, but what is the technical difference between CD-Rs and "Audio" CD-Rs? Are there some CD players that only work with the "audio" kind?
Cause I've never had trouble with the regular ones, which at least here in the US are not subject to the tax on audio media. (See, not entirely off topic;)
Konqueror is NOT released under the GPL, and thus is not "free software" in the strict sense.
This is a good example of the differences among open source licenses; one of the reasons KDE code was attractive to Apple is that it does not REQUIRE them to publish changes to the code.
Konqueror code, like BSD, and Mozilla, many other projects, is free for anybody to use more or less however they like; the GPL, by contrast, requires anybody who changes the code and publishes software based on the changes to publish the new source code as well.
Put the focus on your professional relationship; make the technical aspects secondary to that. If you have any history of trust, emphasize that.
"Do you generally trust me to keep the network secure?" "Do you see the possibility that this company might make mountains out of molehills to demonstrate their value?" "If we DO find out that I have left some things unattended, will you give me the chance to correct them?"
Etc.
Your boss, more than anything, wants to know he's in good hands. Even though he may not consciously know it, his trust in YOU is the most important thing; his trust in the NETWORK is secondary; his trust in a temporary CONTRACTOR is a fleeting thing.
If you adopt an overly defensive or confrontational posture, you do nothing but hurt your relationship with your boss, and ultimately yourself.
That doesn't really address the same issue. Sure, you have the right to use it, under the EULA, under any OS you like. You are legally entitled to run it on a Timex Sinclair. But that doesn't imply that MS has to support you exercising that right on any particular OS.
When talking about rights, I think it's useful to distinguish between LEGAL rights and MORAL rights. Legally, I can't see any reason MS would not have the right to cripple their own software. If you're making a moral argument, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from...maybe you could spell it out better?
Excellent interview. There's two places where I'd have liked to see you hold his feet to the fire:
(1) at the beginning, Martin apologized for taking so long to do the interview. In so doing, he implied that his "busy schedule" was the reason. Later in the interview, we find he's quoting very recent things in MS's defense: IE's popup blocker, the anti-spyware program, an SP2 that is mature and accepted. It would have been good to see his response to a suggestion that he had waited till it was in MS's interests to do the interview.
(2) on the FUD question, Martin says that up till recently MS "didn't really get" Linux and Open Source. What does it say about the biggest software company on the planet that they didn't get it for so long? What does it say about companies Google and IBM and Apple that they got it a long time ago? He's dodging the question here, and really shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Overall though, an enlightening interview, thanks for doing it.
Here's a useful trick that works on every trackpad I've tried, Apple or Windows:
For getting the cursor all the way to the other side of the screen (say, from right to left, for a right-handed person): put your middle finger on the right side of the trackpad; then put your index finger on the left side; then remove the middle finger.
Because the track pad only recognizes one point of contact, it interprets this as your finger moving "really fast," and moves the cursor all the way to the other side.
Costs for telephone and Internet service are always falling, and even though you're probably somewhere in the middle of a 2- or 5-year contract, you can probably manage to get your provider to lower the month-to-month costs if you get a good quote from a competitor. They want to satisfy you to the point where you're not always looking for an alternative, and will probably drop your rates to a market level if given the proper incentive.
Also, in my last IT department, everybody (most of all the manager) was afraid to actually familiarize themselves with the line item charges on the phone/internet bill. The phone company uses all kinds of FUD to make this seem confusing, but it's really not too bad. Ask for a dedicated customer-support person there (if you're a big enough company this will be no problem) and ask them questions until you understand. You might end up saving thousands by eliminating unnecessary services or combining redundant services.
Also, consider switching to a VOIP system...big up-front costs, but huge month-to-month savings, especially if you do much long distance.
PLEASE MOD PARENT UP.
Free Geek is a unique organization, filling an important niche in the world of Open Source software...finding a way to integrate it into the local community. Their primary mission is directed at other problems: recycl computer equipment, get the "good" leftovers to people who can't afford computers otherwise, and educate people of all levels of tech skill.
But, Free Software is the best software tool to accomplish those goals, and is a critical component in how they have become so effective.
Free Geek rocks. You should read up about it, and find a way to make this kind of thing happen in your neck of the woods.
Slashdot Mirror
Several commenters here have suggested that building an alternative to Google, based on values like Wikimedia's, may be a good thing. This is a worthwhile point, and a worthwhile discussion; but it misses the point of what's problematic here.
The problem here, the thing that has many Wikimedians worried, is that Wikimedia trustee Jimmy Wales has apparently been telling outright lies about whether the organization has considered pursuing a search engine to rival Google et al. He has made a number of unequivocal statements in recent weeks -- he himself has accused ousted trustee James Heilman of lying on the subject (but Heilman's narrative is now verified by the published grant application).
https://wikimediafoundation.or...
The thing that has shaken Wikimedia up is not the idea of search, but the question of whether we can expect honest communication from those entrusted with the Wikimedia brand and organization. Beyond that, it's whether that organization in fact wishes for the input of Wikimedia's stakeholders in determining its strategic direction -- something it actively pursued five years ago, but is pursuing only minimally and reluctantly now, with the Knowledge Engine grant as merely the strongest indicator of how its activities fail to align with any strategic document with strong buy-in.
[citation needed]
Actually, forget the citation -- this is simply untrue. GLAM outreach was envisioned by a longtime Wikipedian, implemented by another longtime Wikipedian, and supported by a number of longtime Wikipedians (among others). The Wikimedia Foundation has supported the work of the GLAM outreach community, but never driven it.
If people want links to support this background, I'll find some in the morning. They're all over the Outreach wiki, Meta, etc. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/ http://meta.wikimedia.org/
and yeah, go ducks!
How is this "bending the truth?" Latching onto a product or idea that is "hot" in public discourse is a natural thing to do. It sounds to me like everything they said about the iPhone is true -- I don't think anybody is contesting that -- but that other products have the same problem.
Latching onto a popular product is effective media relations. There's no deception involved in that.
Furthermore, if the iPhone is the leader in driving product innovation, it should most definitely be the subject of scrutiny. If everybody else is trying to catch up with the iPhone, they will likely have to cut the same environmental corners Apple did, if they hope to be successful.
Being a leader comes with responsibility. No less true in consumer electronics than anywhere else.
For attrition.org, the greatest concern would have been that "Todd" was a plant. Covering their own butts would have been of vital importance.
Posting the messages on the web site lays the the foundation to illustrate that they had no real intention of cooperating at a later time.
they're in the UK...if they were here in the US, they could just ask the FBI to recover the data vor them.
The original post wasn't quite accurate.
The Dapper Drake was always intended to be an enterprise-grade release, but several months ago, they decided to give themselves six extra weeks to meet that goal more effectively. They've been working on it much longer than 6 weeks.
Here is an article describing the decision. It links to a log of the actual IRC discussion in which the decision to delay the release was made.
Freedom for Citizens != Freedom for Corporations
In my view, it's important for the government to regulate corporations, when corporations take a prominent role in determining how basic services will be provided to citizens.
Individual citizens do not have much of a voice in determining what the options are...unless our government is that voice.
I find it baffling why you would value a corporation's "freedom" over that of the masses. But that's just a difference of opinion. Neither side in this argument can legitimately claim to represent "freedom for all."
oops- er, I meant Rayleigh ;-)
Be sure to introduce yourself when you join the list, in case there's anybody already lurking from England!
-Pete
But there are lots of Free Geeks! Portland is merely the first and biggest.
Though London doesn't have one yet, many other places do: check out this page for links to many recycling orgs around the world, including several that use the Free Geek trademark: http://freegeek.org/recyclelink.php
And if you want to start up one in your own area, be it in Florida, London, or Uzbekistan, Free Geek Portland maintains both documentation on how to start one up, and an email list for motivated folks to stay in touch with one another, and pick the brains of established Free Geeks. The list is at lists.freegeek.org/listinfo and the documentation at wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/Free_Geek_Startups
Good luck!
-Pete
Outreach Committee
Free Geek
My last comment got modded down, but I think it's an important one...I'll try to say it clearer and nicer:
This IT Director's comment is interesting, but his/her assertion that the original poster's points are just like comments he/she's heard from 100 users at different organizations is childish and unhelpful rhetoric. The original poster could just as easily say that 100 IT Directors have exhibited the problems he/she is presenting. But the original poster apparently chose not to sink to that rhetorical level.
End users and IT departments strugle with one another; we've all seen it. There is no blanket solution; both sides make stupid assumptions (sometimes) and good decisions (other times.) It may well be that this IT director is "right" at his/her company, and that the original poster is also "right" at his/her company; assuming that one company's culture is like the other is simply naive.
Pointing the finger at one another is unlikely to lead to any real solutions. Demanding meaningful intervention and mediation from upper management makes more sense; higher-level managers who resist the temptation to boot all technical decisions to the IT department, and make the effort to learn enough to make decisions that serve the company as a whole, will reap the benefits of a healthier organization.
At all three companies where I've been an IT worker, there has been a common problem: managers who are generally good managers - good people skills, organizational skills, ability to look at the big picture - but who advertise their "technical ignorance" to anyone who will listen. They let the IT department and all other departments know that they will defer to the IT department on technical matters.
So, you end up with technical decisions that serve the people who deal with technology, as opposed to serving the users who are doing the main work of the company, or serving the company's goals as a whole.
I'm not sure what causes effective managers to decide to take a different approach to technical issues than they do with others, but I'm convinced that's the root cause of the sort of problem described by the poster.
I believe top management - and department managers, following their lead - should be pressing IT managers to break down technical issues to the point where they can make effective decisions. When the IT manager says "it will take 3 months to set up a new mail server" and the sales manager throws her hands in the air, their boss should sit down with the IT manager and make them explain what the factors are that will make it take that long. And if it's too technical and they don't understand, they should SAY so, and make the IT manager explain it again. Until they understand. Then, they should say things like "what would it take to do it in 1 month?" and by that time, they should be informed enough to reject bullshit answers like "we need another $75k employee."
"technical ignorance" is not an excuse, when you have people on staff who are capable of educating you. And IT workers who perpetuate the myth that it's "beyond a non-technical user's understanding" merely for their own convenience should be...fired.
If your management doesn't see things this way, there's probably not much you can do about the problem.
Wow...somebody's got some unprocessed emotion about their job. Did it occur to you that the poster might not work for a carbon-copy of your own company? Everything you say is *possible* - but why on earth would you assume that the IT department is perfect and the poster is the one living in fantasy land? There's just no basis for that.
At all three companies where I've been an IT worker, there has been a common problem: managers who are generally good managers - good people skills, organizational skills, ability to look at the big picture - but who advertise their "technical ignorance" to anyone who will listen. They let the IT department and all other departments know that they will defer to the IT department on technical matters.
So, you end up with technical decisions that serve the people who deal with technology, as opposed to serving the users who are doing the main work of the company, or serving the company's goals as a whole.
I'm not sure what causes effective managers to decide to take a different approach to technical issues than they do with others, but I'm convinced that's the root cause of the sort of problem described by the poster.
I believe top management - and department managers, following their lead - should be pressing IT managers to break down technical issues to the point where they can make effective decisions. When the IT manager says "it will take 3 months to set up a new mail server" and the sales manager throws her hands in the air, their boss should sit down with the IT manager and make them explain what the factors are that will make it take that long. And if it's too technical and they don't understand, they should SAY so, and make the IT manager explain it again. Until they understand. Then, they should say things like "what would it take to do it in 1 month?" and by that time, they should be informed enough to reject bullshit answers like "we need another $75k employee."
"technical ignorance" is not an excuse, when you have people on staff who are capable of educating you. And IT workers who perpetuate the myth that it's "beyond a non-technical user's understanding" merely for their own convenience should be...fired.
If your management doesn't see things this way, there's probably not much you can do about the problem.
I have long believed that Linux on the desktop is less a matter of feature parity than of education and technical support.
Here in Portland, we have a non-profit organization called Free Geek which provides both. They deploy refurbished computer systems with Debian and KDE. A huge number of them go to total computer newbies. Most of them love Linux.
Check it out...more organizations should be doing this stuff. And those who don't should take a look at how good education and tech support can impact usability.
Your comment is misleading.
HIPAA does not regulate the specifics of what policies you have to follow to be in (privacy) compliance, but it does require that you follow "due diligence."
Since HIPAA has yet to be litigated, nobody truly knows how the courts will interpret these requirements.
But most likely, the opinions of "privacy experts" respected in their field will be of critical importance.
To me, at least, it seems highly doubtful that merely keeping monitors faced away from walkways will be deemed sufficient to protect information privacy. There are many ways in which privacy could be compromised, and as many measures that can be taken to prevent leaks.
I was setting up a network for a client the other day, and I realized why I hate Windows so much.
At every step, it assumes it's smarter than you. It's the wizard-and-paperclip stuff, but it's in more than just user-oriented stuff.
I was setting up a printer, with a separate network print server, in a DMZ, so that it's accessible from both a publically-accessible wireless network, and from a private office network.
In order to set it up, I wound up having to physically haul the printer to each of the workstations, set it up via USB, temporarily reconfigure the network and plug the ethernet into a different router, and then finally put everything back how it was supposed to be.
All this because Windows doesn't appear to have any way for me to simply set up the printer, specify the file I want to use for the driver, specify the network address I want to use (even if it's not accessible at the time of setup), and move on.
Aarg!
somewhat off-topic, but what is the technical difference between CD-Rs and "Audio" CD-Rs? Are there some CD players that only work with the "audio" kind?
;)
Cause I've never had trouble with the regular ones, which at least here in the US are not subject to the tax on audio media. (See, not entirely off topic
Konqueror is NOT released under the GPL, and thus is not "free software" in the strict sense.
This is a good example of the differences among open source licenses; one of the reasons KDE code was attractive to Apple is that it does not REQUIRE them to publish changes to the code.
Konqueror code, like BSD, and Mozilla, many other projects, is free for anybody to use more or less however they like; the GPL, by contrast, requires anybody who changes the code and publishes software based on the changes to publish the new source code as well.
Put the focus on your professional relationship; make the technical aspects secondary to that. If you have any history of trust, emphasize that.
"Do you generally trust me to keep the network secure?"
"Do you see the possibility that this company might make mountains out of molehills to demonstrate their value?"
"If we DO find out that I have left some things unattended, will you give me the chance to correct them?"
Etc.
Your boss, more than anything, wants to know he's in good hands. Even though he may not consciously know it, his trust in YOU is the most important thing; his trust in the NETWORK is secondary; his trust in a temporary CONTRACTOR is a fleeting thing.
If you adopt an overly defensive or confrontational posture, you do nothing but hurt your relationship with your boss, and ultimately yourself.
That doesn't really address the same issue. Sure, you have the right to use it, under the EULA, under any OS you like. You are legally entitled to run it on a Timex Sinclair. But that doesn't imply that MS has to support you exercising that right on any particular OS.
When talking about rights, I think it's useful to distinguish between LEGAL rights and MORAL rights. Legally, I can't see any reason MS would not have the right to cripple their own software. If you're making a moral argument, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from...maybe you could spell it out better?
Excellent interview. There's two places where I'd have liked to see you hold his feet to the fire:
(1) at the beginning, Martin apologized for taking so long to do the interview. In so doing, he implied that his "busy schedule" was the reason. Later in the interview, we find he's quoting very recent things in MS's defense: IE's popup blocker, the anti-spyware program, an SP2 that is mature and accepted. It would have been good to see his response to a suggestion that he had waited till it was in MS's interests to do the interview.
(2) on the FUD question, Martin says that up till recently MS "didn't really get" Linux and Open Source. What does it say about the biggest software company on the planet that they didn't get it for so long? What does it say about companies Google and IBM and Apple that they got it a long time ago? He's dodging the question here, and really shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Overall though, an enlightening interview, thanks for doing it.
-Pete
Here's a useful trick that works on every trackpad I've tried, Apple or Windows:
For getting the cursor all the way to the other side of the screen (say, from right to left, for a right-handed person): put your middle finger on the right side of the trackpad; then put your index finger on the left side; then remove the middle finger.
Because the track pad only recognizes one point of contact, it interprets this as your finger moving "really fast," and moves the cursor all the way to the other side.
Costs for telephone and Internet service are always falling, and even though you're probably somewhere in the middle of a 2- or 5-year contract, you can probably manage to get your provider to lower the month-to-month costs if you get a good quote from a competitor. They want to satisfy you to the point where you're not always looking for an alternative, and will probably drop your rates to a market level if given the proper incentive.
Also, in my last IT department, everybody (most of all the manager) was afraid to actually familiarize themselves with the line item charges on the phone/internet bill. The phone company uses all kinds of FUD to make this seem confusing, but it's really not too bad. Ask for a dedicated customer-support person there (if you're a big enough company this will be no problem) and ask them questions until you understand. You might end up saving thousands by eliminating unnecessary services or combining redundant services.
Also, consider switching to a VOIP system...big up-front costs, but huge month-to-month savings, especially if you do much long distance.
Free Geek is a unique organization, filling an important niche in the world of Open Source software...finding a way to integrate it into the local community. Their primary mission is directed at other problems: recycl computer equipment, get the "good" leftovers to people who can't afford computers otherwise, and educate people of all levels of tech skill.
But, Free Software is the best software tool to accomplish those goals, and is a critical component in how they have become so effective.
Free Geek rocks. You should read up about it, and find a way to make this kind of thing happen in your neck of the woods.